jimmy462
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
snapsy wrote:
If you consider how raw video is generally used then the reason for downsampling becomes clear.
My interest was to know what a baseline non-downsampled comparison of the 8K vs 6K frame would reveal for pixel-level noise. From there one will know what is happening downstream or when downsampling (or, upsampling) are performed.
Most aren't delivering 8K content, and 6K isn't a standardized format for content consumption.
But sometimes one will wish to zoom into an 8K frame fully for a 1/4 frame, full-4K punch-in crop for, oh say, subject tracking.
Currently both are really just intermediate formats on their way to being delivered as 4K, which requires downsampling for most footage, outside some cases of cropping when panning/zooming higher-res content to 4K.
And, some of us are looking for 8K master footage for 8K delivery down the road.
In the comparison video I have planned I'll be comparing all at their native resolutions, then at common 6K and 4K resolutions. The reason you have to shoot at maximum 8K/6K resolution on these cameras rather than shooting 4K raw is because that's the only way to deliver a true raw file, otherwise the data has to be demosaiced in camera and delivered in some other semi-raw format to achieve 4K.
Thus the allure for those of us looking to work with larger canvases.
I watched the video you shared. The blue channel clipping he's describing appears to be unique to Resolve's N-Log CST. Not sure why he's using N-Log to process his NRAW files, since N-Log for NRAW is an optional log space that doesn't add any utility unless one wants to match the NLOG workflow to H.265/H.264 N-Log files.
Such are the differences for looking to use these cameras for a paycheck, where working-in/shooting-for "set/project/production" requirements dictate specific transforms, and those using them for personal artistic or scientific or, even, just hobbyist endeavours, where (I suspect) N-log will find most of it's non-professional usage. To that point, there clearly needs to be, IMHO, more consumer-friendly tools for working with this RAW footage and cranking out shorter-workflow content. DaVinci Resolve is not that product. Early days "for sure' for internal RAW video, I expect the landscape to evolve as more non-industry hands get a hold of these tools.
As for separate threads, I'm not sure there's enough interest here on FM, frankly for either my video or stills comparisons.
Fair enough.
But I believe that there is a growing interest with many folks looking to work with RAW video as much as folks currently enjoy shooting and working with RAW stills. My take is that the tech evolution that has now brought us to this place (that "place" being, internal RAW video for the masses) has been, up till now, based on hand-me-down gear and tools and software and practices from the professional video production industries which are ill-suited for consumer needs. I expect "smarter" software that recognizes the input files and that creates the appropriate timelines for the desired output with minimal input from the user. We're all already witnessing that evolution now with the latest iPhones (for example), and "anyone can do this" and "everyone will want to do this" is coming...shoot in RAW, edit, pinch/zoom/track, add effects and color "looks", pipe out to social media in a few short strokes, it's coming, like it or not.
8k, and now 6K, internal RAW video was a masterstroke by Nikon...and now they own RED...hang onto your hats, folks. 
|
